My Top Ten list of Innane, Profane, and otherwise Flame arguments used against Hillary Clinton

[Tom Rinaldo]

Number One. Claims that Hillary Clinton is probably guilty of doing whatever terrible thing that happened, even when there is no concrete evidence that she, or even her campaign, is or was involved in that terrible thing. This includes what I call "Minority Report" crimes, ones that have not actually happened yet, but because "everyone knows" that Hillary Clinton "is capable" of doing something so horrible, we don't need to wait for it to actually happen before condemning her for it. I've seen Hillary Clinton raked over the coals for "being capable of" rigging voting machines in primaries that weren't even held yet. More typically though she immediately gets blamed for things like Obama's passport files getting spyed on before the full story is known.


Number Two. Ongoing "speculation" over whether or not Hillary will run against the 2008 Democratic ticket if she loses the Democratic nomination. Questions like: Will Hillary try to become McCain's VP if she can't win the Democratic nomination for President, or will she run for President as an Independent, or might she become a Democrat in quasi name only, like a Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller? It doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton has been a bedrock Democrat for 40 years, nor does it matter how often Hillary Clinton says in public how very important it will be for all Demorats to unite behind our eventual nominee, whoever that ends up being. Why take her word for it? She must be lying (see Numbers One and Three).


Number Three. Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. This form of smear was perfected by the Right wing media to help defeat Al Gore in 2000 but it has since been picked up and refined by the Left againt Hillary Clinton. A very useful attack line because when all else fails it then lets Hillary Clinton's enemies dismiss everything she says as "probably just another lie". Never mind the fact that virtually every major newspaper in the nation has a regular feature that fact checks all political candidates because every one of them "lies" and "distorts" things about their and their opponents records and positions from time to time. Nor does it matter that human beings weren't prepared by evolution to have our every utterence recorded, and all our written words retrievable at the click of a mouse, in order to be matched up against all our other words and prior utterences for indications of dishonesty.

Somehow though, a resulting "honesty" issue is only Hillary's problem. Barack Obama can misremember the circumstances of his birth. He can mistate the role Kennedy played in his familie's journey to America. He can keep revising upward how much money his campaign accepted from Tony Rezko. He can blame his old Illinois Senate campaign staff for incorrectly stating his positions regarding issues on a questionaire he turned in during one of his Chicago political races, until evidence emerged in Obama's own handwriting showing Obama worked on those answers himself. Obama can take credit in speeches for passing nuclear related legislation that didn't actually pass the Senate. Obama campaigned saying his campaign had nothing to do with lobbyists untill it came out that a lobbyinst was a key part of his own caampaign in a state he was hotly contesting (NH), at which point Obama simply said that he meant Federal, not State, lobbyists only. Bottom line; all candidates "lie" and virtually all message board posters do too. To update the old cliche: "Lies happen".


Number Four. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl, so there goes being a good Democrat out the window (See Nuber Two). When I was abour a year older than Hillary Clinton was when she was a Goldwater Girl, I tried sleeping next to my Bee Bee gun one night hoping to have a dream about being a war hero. I planned to go to South East Asia to fight communists when I was old enough to. When the time came I burned my draft card instead. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton evolved to become a campus radical, after first exploring the left wing of what was then still a true Big Tent Republican Party, with honest to God Liberals still active inside it.

The same internet that so many of Hillary Clinton's enemies love to surf looking for evidence of her lying has plenty of biographical information available expaining how why and when Hillary Clinton became a Democrat. Many of he same people who gush over how Barack Obama can reach across the aisle to bring Americans together while appealing to Republicans to come vote for him in the primaries, still can't let go of bashing Hillary Clinton for supporting Barry Goldwater when she was 14.


Number Five. Hillary Clinton has no more experience than does Barack Obama, and possibly less because he has held elective office for more years than she (but only 3 in Congress). First the disclaimer; experience does not always equate with good judgment and wisdom. Dick Cheney for example has more experience than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined, but Hillary Clinton definately has more relevent experience than Barack Obama. My advice to Obama supporters who hate to conceed any advantage to Clinton; It's a fact, deal with it. Barack Obama has and he stills makes a pretty good case for why he, not Hillary, should become our next President. Some kind of weird mirror dance goes on whereby many Obama supporters mock Hillary Clinton (with some basis) for inflating aspects of the experience she actually has while they are doing contortions to deny Hillary Clinton credit for relevent experience that she honestly posesses.


Number Six. The myth that Hillry Clinton is way to the Right of Barack Obama on the issues, making him a true Progressive and her a DINO. These are two Democratic Senators who have very similiar voting records and positions on the major issues. It has often been commented that so much of this primary campaign has been focused on personalities and factors like judgment and experience PRECISELY because so little actually seperates the two candiates when it comes to voting records, policies and positions. Of course they have some differences, but very few dramatic ones. Which is why anyone who watched any of the recent Democratic candidate debates can remember how common an occurance it was for both Obama and Clinton to begin their answer to a question by first acknowleding their agreement with whatever the other candidate just said. Which is why it would be laughable to read all the posts trying to equate Hillary Clinton with Georg Bush, Joe Lieberman, and/or John McCain if they weren't so maddening instead,


Number Seven. Call this one; "Get out of the way Hillary". It's the claim that Hillary Clinton is simply dividing the Democratic Party by continuing to campaign for President against Barack Obama when she has no plausible chance of winning herself. Well, if the Democratic Party is divided, it is because it is dividing itself, not because Hillary Clinton is forcing it to be divided. And were the Democratic Party not very closely divided, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would long since have been eliminated from this race. The Democratic voters, both those who have gone to the polls, and those who have answered the polls, have divided the Democratic Party by refusing to overwhelmingly throw their support behind one candidate at this stage in the race.

If Barack Obama had for the most part already united the Democratic Party behind him he would already have the delegates in hand now to win the nomination on the first ballot. He hasn't and he doesn't, and it isn't his primary opponent's job to do that for him - until the outcome is certain. There is a difference between someone being the favorite to win and the actual winner him or her self. Holding a three length leed going around the final turn in a horse race, holding a three run lead in the bottom of the eigth inning in a baseball game, these are desirable places to find oneself, but neither guarentees victory.


Number Eight. The endless bitter and/or sarcastic name calling against Hillary Clinton: Queen, bitch, monster, whore, murderer, Liar (with a very capital "L"), racist, neocon, power hungry sociopath (having no care beyond her own personal fortunes), etc. Words like these are continually hurled against Hillary Clinton. The level of intensely personal character assasination that takes place against Hillary Clinton daily on political message boards like this has surpassed whatever ugliness gets thrown against any Republican - and I'm including Joe Lieberman, over the last several months.


Number Nine. "Iraq is Hillary's war". No, it's not. Not any more so than it is Joe Biden, John Kerry or John Edward's war, and it's not those mens war either. Iraq is George W. Bush's war. If the blood of a million innocents is on anyone it's on George Bush; not Hillary nor Joe nor either John. Voting against the Iraq War Resolution - which authorized war with Iraq under certain circumstances but did NOT specifically call for or initiate it, is a mark of honor that many Democratic Senators earned in 2002. But relatively few Democratic activists or voters now claim that voting for the IWR at the time was such as grevious lack of solid judgment on the part of John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd that none of those men could have gone on to make good or even great Presidents. That accusation most often has been saved for Hillary Clinton. Which leads to my final numbered point.


Number Ten. "Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to become President". First, few actually give even a second thought to how utterly viscious an attack that sentance contains. In a world where a significant percentage of the planet's rulers gained power by literally murdering some of their opposition, this is not trivial accusation to make. Murder in fact was already among the charges that some on the Right claim Hillary Clinton was guilty of while trying to hold onto political power at the highest levels. This attack line is a retread from the Limbaugh School of Journalism. And for those who complain about this, that, or another thing that Hillary Clinton may have said that poisons the chances for Barack Obama to win the General Election should he become our nominee; none of it rises to the level of making this type of accusation against Hillary Clinton. Nothing gives greater ammunition for John McCain to use against Hillary Clinton should she become our nominee than the claim that she will do or say anything to pursue personal power, but that's a charge that Barack Obama has already made against her.

No attack on a fellow Democrat unleashes more potentially lethal fire than that one, and it is utterly false. Hillary Clinton's campaign may have or may yet cross one or more lines that some of her critics would prefer not be crossed, in her competition with Barack Obama for the nomination. Hopefully most of her critics also understand that sometimes that feeling is reversed. But this particular attack bluntly states that there simply is NO line, period, that Hillary Clinton won't cross at the expense either of her opponents or our nation.

I would not say that about John McCain, and maybe not even about George W. Bush. We have no business saying that about another Democrat. And one need just review point Number Nine to disprove the charge. After the Iowa vote certainly, but most likely well before then Hillary Clinton knew that her chance to win the Democratic Nomination to run for President was seriously being hurt by her failure to say the words "I'm sorry" about her IWR vote. Even at her first one on one debate with Barack Obama, after the monentum in the race had already shifted to Obama, after a first half of that debate where Hillary was considered by most to be winning based on a discussion of domestic issues, Hillary wouldn't say what Democratic voters wanted to hear when the discussion finally turned to Iraq, and Barack Obama scored major points as a result.

More recently though Hillary Clinton was almost out of the race for President as votes in Ohio and Texas loomed. A loss of the popular vote in either State would have led to increased calls for her to exit the contest and her fund raising would have virtually dried up. Obama had the momentum with 14 straight victories, and he had the money available to significantly outspend Clinton on the air and on the ground. There was no way Hilary Clinton could have been confident about winning both those contests. But Reverend Wright never become an issue in those primaries. That was a story the media had been holding back, but Hillary Clinton didn't force it out. Had Obama won solidly in Texas and held Clinton to a narrow victory in Ohio, the nomination contest would have ended right there and then. Hillary Clinton will not do or say aything to become President, but some of her critics feel free to do or say anything to prevent that from happening.

[GarbagemanLB]

1. She voted to authorize the use of military force. Sorry, but she can't put all the blame on Bush.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I didn't say all the blame is on Bush - just the primary blame

As I noted above, Hillary Clinton was not exactly the deciding vote the day the IWR was voted on, she had plenty of Democratic company at the time in voting for it. I do not claim she deserves no blame. I said it is not Hillary Clinton's war, certainly no more so than the other Democrats I listed.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. If Clinton had voted No

what would be different? Would Bush not have gone to war?

How can she be responsible when her actions had no effect on the outcome?

[dchill]

20. "...what would be different?"

She would have a shred of credibility. Maybe. "...her actions had no effect on the outcome" It's not her fault! It's not her fault! It's not her fault!

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. You're being purposely evasive

what would be different about the situation in Iraq?

Would Bush not have gone to war? Would it be over sooner? Would fewer people be dead?

For some reason, a lot of people here like to blame Clinton for the war more than they like to blame Bush.

[dchill]

31. I didn't evade. I only wanted to answer the first question...

because I knew the answer. As for the other questions, they require a crystal ball - or an alternate universe. But I DO know that if every Dem who voted yes on the IWR had voted NO, they would have had a much better position to advocate from. And they would have had credibility. They traded character for calculation. They played politics instead, and lost. As will Hillary Clinton.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

132. Saying she has not responsability

is like saying McCain has no responsibility after all his vote would not have changed anything..

face it if she is so spineless that shell take the 'safe' vote and later say well its not like my vote made a difference... She does not deserve to sit in the big chair..

[Auntie Bush]

159. But does that mean Obama deserves to sit on his throne?

Didn't he have a safe vote too?

Just kicken along!

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Clinton bares some blame, but not nearly as much as she gets on DU

I think the OP is right. Clinton gets an unfair amount of blame for something that John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Biden also did. And while Bush is primarily the culprit and always will be, they need to share some responsibility.

If you listened to Ted Kennedy's account of how the Iraq War Resolution was debated he said that until he started rallying people against it, there were maybe 8 Senators that were planning to vote NAY. He got it up to 23. A week later and there might have been a different result. Also at this time Kennedy was really starting to grill Rummy in the senate hearings.

The Congress and the mainstream media didn't adequately do their job of asking the tough questions before handing over Bush the authorization to use military force. Clinton was a part of that and bares some responsibility. Not nearly as much as she gets blame for on DU though, that much I will admit.

[suzie]

88. Clinton bares some blame for voting for the IWR

All politicians have to make decisions about votes that their constituents may or may not support. One might theorize that Edwards and Biden were unable to get the support that Obama does because of their votes for the war. Kerry got into a lot of trouble because of the flip-flopping of his various votes.

At the time, it would have seemed reasonable to assume that Hillary Clinton might find it difficult to return to the Senate from New York if she cast a vote against the IWR. She took the chance that Bush and company would be successful or even competent in their handling of events in Iraq. She lost.

If, on the other hand, she had voted against the IWR and lost her Senate seat, would she be behind Obama today? My guess is no. She would have been a martyr to George Bush's failed adventure and her nomination would have truly been inevitable. It might have been over before Super Tuesday.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. Nice first post! Welcome to DU. n/t

[IowaGirl]

154. Welcome, Suzie! Insightful commentary is always a great addition. I have often thought that it....

would have been very difficult for Hillary to vote against this war as a Senator of New York where 9/11 happened if there was even a shred of evidence that Saddam was somehow involved.

[niceypoo]

173. Did you vote for Kerry?

His reasoning for voting for IRW resolution was the same as Hillary's.

[blm]

143. There was a time BETWEEN the IWR and Bush's DECISION to invade. Kerry spoke out THEN as a senator

who supported more wqeapon inspections and diplomacy for his vote.

Those who SAID the same but did NOT speak out against invading before, during and after DO have a special place as real supporters of the war and Bush's DECISION To go to war.

Hillary wouldn't even lead a fight against Bush and Rumsfeld after Abu Ghraib, she was so damn tight next to Bush.

[niceypoo]

174. When Kerry was running in 2004 he said he would still vote the same way...

...given the same circumstances.

[blm]

179. Not the point - the resolution didn't take us to war - the weapon inspections were working to

PROVE force was not needed.

Kerry stood up AGAINST the decision to go to war before, during and after. Had MORE Dems stood with him to denounce Bush's DECISION to go to war, it would have been a lot easier to maintain the integrity of their vote.

Gee - wonder WHY Clinton wouldn't do that THEN, but tries to claim it's what she was doing NOW.

It sure would have helped the nominee in 2004 if Clintons and other bigname Dems had been on the network news shows SUPPORTING his position then instead of siding with Bush.

Maybe more people would be believing Candidate Clinton today. Ever think about that?

[JVS]

34. Clinton was one of the more prominent senators. If she and a few others had shown some leadership...

maybe we could have filibustered. Or at least kept half of our senators from endorsing the war.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. If by prominent you mean famous, yes

but she was one of the most junior senators.

It's absurd to think her vote could've changed the outcome.

[Nickster]

52. What about her 35 years of experience? Doesn't that have some weight?

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. What about Joe Biden's reputed long time foreign policy expertise?

Or John Kerry's? They carried some weight in the Senate. Both of those men ran for the Democratic nomination for President after voting for the IWR, and Kerry ran for President. Neither of those men have been blamed as persistantly and personally for the Iraq war as Hillary Clinton has however.

[Nickster]

68. Because she's closest to being the next President right now. Biden actually had a decent plan on the

table before the IWR vote that got rail roaded by the Democratic Leadership. I don't think she'd get lambasted half as much if she'd admit that it was a mistake that she made and now it's time to move forward. People make mistakes and I don't look down upon them if they admit them instead of pretending like they never made the mistake at all. Senator Clinton was right out there saying the same lines that Dubya was saying in her support of the IWR, now she says she was against the war, well from Jan 2005 at least.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. I mean this with full respect

The man whose photo appear on all your posts was literally being quoted on George Bush's own web site at the time making the case for the President's position on Iraq, and he literally co-sponsored the IWR. I certainly agree that Clinton would be lambasted less now had she, like Edwards, later said she was sorry for that vote, but her judgment at the time was certainly no worse than that of John Edwards for example. Instead of saying "I'm sorry" Hillary Clinton said had she known then what she knows now she would not have voted for the IWR. The distinction obviously matters to some people here, but again my major point was that blame for the Iraq war happening in the first place is unfairly directed at Hillary Clinton while others escape that type of withering personal criticism, regardless of who used what words later to indicate how their feelings had changed regarding the war.

[Apollo11]

41. Hillary was a new kid on the block

Back in October 2002, Hillary Clinton had served less than 2 years in the US Senate.

At the same time, John Kerry (who no doubt was already looking ahead to the 2004 Presidential election) had served almost 18 years in the US Senate. I would say that Senator Kerry played a leading role in encouraging his fellow Democrats to vote for the IWR.

Here are a couple of complete paragraphs from an incredibly (and some might say, typically) long and rambling speech that Kerry made to the Senate on October 9, 2002 (one day before Senator Clinton made her speech on the same resolution):

"I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons." (...)

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Link to full speech: www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

[MyNameGoesHere]

82. No Obama supporters have made it clear she was a nobody

and did nothing in congress. Many are even planning her ouster after the primaries, because she isn't a real democrat. You cannot have it both ways.

[LiberalFighter]

130. Anyone that is considering to oust Clinton after the primaries are fools.

[niceypoo]

168. The smears roll on....

Apparently this is all we will ever get from Obama supporters. Mindless smears and hatred, they are the new republicans.

[jackson_dem]

167. A filibuster would have done nothing. There were over 70 votes for the AUMF

[yodermon]

76. If Clinton had voted No, she'd be the nominee already.

Just my opinion.

[Auntie Bush]

128. If Clinton had voted no...she wouldn't even have had the opportunity to run for president.

She'd have been seen as just a weak woman. They even demeaned Kerry for his IW1 vote. A war hero was considered weak. What chance would a woman have to have later been deemed strong enough to be CiC NONE!

[FightTheRight89]

109. Wait.

So it's meaningless to take a stand against something if your actions have no direct effect on the outcome? That's got to be the most asinine logic I have ever heard in my entire life.

[happygoluckytoyou]

113. if she had voted NO.... at least she would have voted NO... her vote is HER VOICE

[PoliticalAmazon]

115. And her vote is the endorsement of the slaughter of thousands of American soldiers. n/t

[tmoore411]

164. Maybe she should have taken a page from the Obama playbook

and just voted present :banghead:

[Auntie Bush]

180. If Obama has been there...he probably would have voted "present".

[sampsonblk]

135. If Clinton had voted no

...then she would have done the right thing, and we wouldn't have to keep having this discussion. Instead, the jury's still out on her. Had she done the right thing when her moment came, she'd probably have the nomination already.

[D23MIURG23]

139. If she had voted No then she wouldn't share responsibility.

What about this logic is difficult for Hillary supporters?

She enabled a devastating war out of calculation and cowardess. That gives her a share of responsibility. The same is true for all the other opportunistic dems who misplaced their spines at this critical moment, but unlike Hillary many of them have summoned the decency to admit wrongdoing and become part of the solution. This is what separates the Kerrys from the Liebermans, and as you can plainly see Hillary is on the wrong side of that line.

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. According to their voting records Clinton is as much a part of the solutionn now

as is Barack Obama. You can say that Clinton saying she would take back that vote if she could, and that had she known then what she knows now she would not have cast that vote in favor of the IWR doesn't show the decency to admit wrongdoing if you want. But her calling for the U.S. to start leaving Iraq the moment she takes office is pretty damn similar to Obama's position and a whole lot different than McCain and Lieberman's position.

[cui bono]

150. You can't be serious...

:wtf:

[MojoMojoMojo]

12. Bullshit

"She voted to authorize the use of military force. Sorry, but she can't put all the blame on Bush."

[dchill]

23. Bullshit - Whoa! Snappy rejoinder.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I accept that a lot of fair criticism of Hillary Clinton is possible

including some on matters similar to what I included on this list. But I think most folks readintg this in good faith can tell the difference between what I am listing here and fair criticism.

[emilyg]

4. k/r

[last1standing]

5. All valid points but it would be easy to come up with a similar list for Obama.

In the end I think the only real criticism of Hillary that matters is that she didn't run an effective campaign. She had every advantage going into this cycle and lost it due to mismanagement. She wasn't able to keep her message focused on the positive and that hurt her greatly. Now with the money running short she's not able to get a positive message out as well as she needs.

Whether you like him as a candidate or not, you have to admit that Obama has shown tremendous skill and discipline. We need that for the upcoming fight with McCain.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I have no problem "admiting" that Obama has shown great skill and discipline

And I think he's likable enough :)

[last1standing]

8. LOL! I agree, he is likable enough.

I supported Edwards first and am only lukewarm Obama, but I do think of the two left running he'll make the better candidate for the G.E. In my opinion he's proved that he has the ability to tangle with the republican smear machine. I don't know if he can beat it, but he certainly has a chance.

[Kaleva]

10. The Clinton campaign model

would have worked but for one once in a lifetime opponent. I truly think Hillary would have had the nomination locked up by Super Tuesday had Obama not run.

[juajen]

157. She had to defeat Obama and the republican machine that

has been pouring money and votes into his campaign. Eventually you all will see, that if he is the nominee, his republican support will be AWOL in the general election.

[democrattotheend]

181. I agree with that

I used to work at a women's group that supported Clinton, and I was trying to convince myself, and even though I liked a lot of the candidates, I think it would have been much easier to convince myself to support Hillary if Obama were not in the race. For a while I could not even describe why I supported Obama, but it was just a gut feeling, and I felt like I was missing out on something sitting on the sidelines of the movement he was building.

[dorktv]

13. I never thought she had every advantage. I felt that she had a good chance

but since she had lots of competition, I had a feeling it was going to take a long time.

Heck it took until April of 1992 before the nomination settled on President Clinton so why should it be a cornation? This is good for the party and for the people of the this country even if many on here disagree with me.

[Sancho]

112. Sorry, but running as the first woman President cannot be "every advantage"!

We've already seen polls that an African-American man would be preferred by some over a woman. Hilary has clearly been a target of the right wing for a long time. If she is the candidate, she has overcome a lot of stereotypes and difficulties (just like Obama).

She has raised more money by far than Dean and Kerry did last time. Frankly, I'd say that both Obama and Hilary have shown some skill and both have made some snafu's .

It is simply wrong to cast Hilary as anything but someone who has overcome a lot of barriers to get to where she is...

[destes]

125. The difference is that you could take that list of Obama's

various misjudgements and find no parallel to the demonization foisted by the MSM to that heaped upon Clinton. So long as the press has a dog in this hunt we all get propaganda for news. How many believe they'll take the same kidd gloved approach when Obama goes up against their hero, the 'straight talking maverick', McCain? His psychosis will remain unsung by the MSM until we have a foreign policy of Reagan reruns. Will that be Clinton's fault too?

Obama's a great candidate but they'll fry him this sept/oct.

[madmom]

141. I think Obama biggest advantage is he has an advertising exec. on

his staff, he knows how to sell.

[Auntie Bush]

160. Yep! He sure knows how to sell kool-Aid.

[ruggerson]

6. An honor to send this to the greatest page Tom

There will be a lot of historical dissection when this is all said and done, regardless of how it turns out.

The big story will be the total abandoment of objectivity by the mainstream media (what else is new.)

What our "free press" has become does not serve us well. They are a horde of biased opinion pushers and distorters who masquerade as journalists.

[rodeodance]

21. well said...

[BlueIdaho]

9. I don't think HRC is necessarily a bad person

Just a profoundly bad choice for President of the United States. Look at her campaign and the choices she has made when her back was to the wall. In the end she has failed to ignite the imagination of voters and has called on our lesser angels. Her die hard fans will tell you she can still win this thing - she can't - its over - she's finished.

[dorktv]

14. Actually the way she has been fighting gives me hope that she can

fight the Republican hate machine.

In addition to that I feel that she has shown in quiet ways that no one pays attention to that she can work with the opposition.

[rodeodance]

19. her whole career-including her Senate experience has proven she works

well with opposition groups

[dorktv]

24. But one cannot admit that. Only St. Obama does that and well

I actually have not seen anything backing it up but I suppose it is true.

Lots of people have told me anyway.

[guyanakoolaid]

133. You mean like her health-care plan? No, wait, you mean like the IWR?

[Arugula Latte]

74. She can't even run a decent campaign. How is she going to run the country? nt

[rodeodance]

15. Thanks Tom. She is a strong women and have overcome many trials.

[rodeodance]

16. Your last sentence says it all. ........

.......Hillary Clinton will not do or say aything to become President, but some of her critics feel free to do or say anything to prevent that from happening.

[maximusveritas]

17. You mean, "My Top Ten List of Strawmen"

What you've done here is take some arguments and then take the most extreme form of them to argue against. That's the definition of a strawman.

The only ones you didn't do that for are numbers 2, 5, and 7.

On #2: Lieberman was also a "bedrock Democrat" and talked up his allegiance to the Democratic Party even when running as an Independent. I'm not saying Hillary will do what he did, but it's certainly not out of the question. I wouldn't say it's out of the question for Obama to do it if he were to somehow lose either.

On #5: "It's a fact, deal with it" is not an argument. I happen to disagree about what "relevant experience" is. I don't think it's necessarily experience in Washington. That's a difference of opinion.

On #7: If Hillary said she was dropping out and wanted everyone to support Obama, they would do it. They would have done it months ago. And we'd all be united behind him now. And the same is true vice versa. The longer this goes on, the less likey that becomes. In the end, this isn't just about winning this primary. It's about winning back the White House for the Democrats. That's the one thing we can't forget.

[dorktv]

22. Um months ago it was still before the primaries even started so no one

knew who was actually winning.

By the way, the Ds used to be able to handle having a general election nearly as close to the actual date in the past. WITHOUT the internet, WITHOUT radio and WITHOUT anything more than grit and determination.

I think we can handle this one too. Unless you have a lower opinion than I do of the Party.

[Maddy McCall]

18. Tom, thanks for this!

K/R as always!

:yourock:

[Cant trust em]

25. I am compelled to recommend this post

As someone who is interested in the democrats winning in the fall, I think this was a good read. Maybe I don't agree with every statement, but it hones in on a lot of good points.

[dchill]

27. "Innane" is as "Innane" does...

Does it feel to you that the more you write, the righter you are? Thanks for the huge pile of exaggerant. Oh, and it's documented that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

[lark]

127. They are all "liars"

Pay attention much?

[dchill]

166. Not much - my stupid head only bobs up...

when they show a really big one. That gets through all that useless meat like sniper fire.

[Qanisqineq]

28. Holy F**k, awesome post

K&R :kick:

:applause:

:bounce:

I like it so much I can't think of anything semi-intelligent to say right now. Just "fuck yeah!"

[xchrom]

30. well written and well reasoned. nt

[JohnnyLib2]

32. Bookmarked and recommended.

Thank you.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. well done!

k&r

[grantcart]

35. well written and I agree with most of it but #2

Its a pretty sad day when McCain gives Obama stronger credit for being suitable for president than Clinton does.
Her comments on the subject invite wild speculation about her future.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/06/mccain_obama_absolutely_qualif.html
McCain: Obama 'Absolutely' Qualified to Be President

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said Sunday that the leader for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, would be "absolutely" qualified to be president, should the voters elect him. But, he said, "I believe that my talent and my background and my experience, which has led to my judgment, ... qualifies me more."

In his first Sunday talk show appearance since locking up the GOP nomination last month, McCain criticized Obama and others for making too much of his comment that the United States could remain in Iraq for 100 years, or a period similar to the length of the U.S. presence in Germany and South Korea.

"Senator Obama and anyone who reads that knows that I didn't think we were in a 100-year war," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

Days after going to Memphis to mark the 40th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, McCain repeated that he "was wrong" to vote in 1983 against establishing a federal holiday to honor King. He added, as he did Friday, that he thought better of his mistake in time to back such a holiday in his home state of Arizona.

McCain also confirmed that he would meet next week with Secret Service officials next week and expects to have agents protecting him "shortly thereafter." McCain previously had refused such protection.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Yes and No

I appreciate how you phrased your charge against Clinton, it was a fair way of stating your criticism of her on that point because you didn't take it to the absurd level of claiming she endorsed McCain over Obama. I actually expect the Republicans to run a two tier campaign against Obama if he is our nominee, so McCain's comments do not surprise me. McCain, will usually stick to the high road and attempt to appear gracious and fair minded. He will do so because he needs Democratic votes to win, and because he can't stray too far from core conservative positions on issues without losing his own base. If he personally runs a harsh campaign on top of seeming wrong on most issues to Democrats, he won't have a chance of pulling enough Democratic support to win.

McCain's surragates, allies in the right wing "mainstream media" and various "anonymous supporters" will run the dirty campaign for McCain against his Democratic opponent, which of course is the same manner in which the most viscious attacks on Hillary Clinton have been mounted during this primary season. They will be the ones going in for the kill.

I will agree that Clinton's comments on McCain provided an opening for her enemies to exploit in promoting wild speculation about Hillary Clinton's future. I stand by my opinion of how negatively distorted and unfounded that speculation has been, and agree with your use of "wild" as an adjective describing it.

[grantcart]

58. fair enough

[BigBearJohn]

36. Thanks for taking the time to write & post this. Well done! K/R

[TTUBatfan2008]

37. Tom, excellent post...

I've noticed lots of these very personal attacks from both sides, the types of attacks that don't belong in the campaign (there's an anti-Obama thread comparing him to Stalin and Chairman Mao based on a campaign poster). This kind of hateful junk coming from both sides is so destructive and needs to stop.

The most legit criticism of Hillary's campaign that should not be discounted is how her campaign has been managed. They now have colleges in California threatening to use bill collectors to make sure they get their money from the campaign for services already provided in good faith and not followed up on by the campaign. It's not necessarily her fault, but the people around her have been a disaster as far as managing the campaign. I don't know if they got complacent in 2007 or what, but 2008 has been a disaster for the campaign from a spending and strategic standpoint. I hope to God that if she manages to become the nominee and President that she will fire the likes of Wolfson. I do not want those people being involved with how the country is run, based on how incompetent they have been so far in this campaign.

[kmsarvis]

38. I THINK SHE LOST ALOT OF SUPPORT WHEN..........

she suggested McCain would be a better president than Obama.Forget "snipergate"or any of that other bullshit,she is a sell out.

[TBF]

146. I agree the McCain ad was the most divisive thing in this campaign -

I don't like Hillary anyway, but that ad really made me hate her. How dare she hold up a war-mongering Republican as a better candidate than Barack Obama? How stupid to even put herself on the same plate as McCain if she envisions herself beating him. McCain is going to come out with an ad in which he uses her soundbites to let everyone know SHE recommended him for the job.

Just stupid and arrogant. That said I have gotten over some of my initial seething hatrid and would vote for her over McCain, but I still dislike the lady, and that ad did nothing to help her.

[quickesst]

39. If you had the time.....

you could compile a top ten list every single day here at DU that falls into the category of the inane, and profane. They have become what was once despised by Democrats. Deja vu. Same song, different election. We have seen a candidate's supporters put the priority of destroying an opponent ahead of substance, credibility, and morality. Look what that has gotten us. Thanks.
quickesst

[Apollo11]

42. Recommended

Tom, I am recommending you for the job of Chief Strategist, taking over from Mark Penn! ;-)

[KittyWampus]

44. Some points are valid. Many aren't. Your support of Clinton has warped your judgment.

She's run a crappy campaign and effectively LOST weeks (months) ago and yet continues on.

The only reason she can continue is because she's got the pre-exisiting Democratic Machine behind her and the Mediawhores still enable her.

She IS poisoning the well for Democratic party.

It says a lot that you consider objective observations of Hillary as inane.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. It says a lot that you consider so many of the "objections to Hillary" I noted as acceptable

My own first post to this thread acknowledged that legitimate criticisms of Clinton, including some related to content I wrote about, can be made by fair minded people. It is the abundance of attacks by non fair minded people that I was writing about. If you can't recognize that I'll leave it to others to judge where you fit in the overall scheme in that regard.

[Buzz Clik]

46. I'm curious about #10: What is she not willing to say to become president?

I've seen no evidence of restraint on her part in this regard.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I gave some examples, but...

if your wish comes through and Obama becomes our nominee, you will witness a vast wealth of outrageous things both said and done to destroy Barack Obama, by people fighting to maintain Republican control of the Executive branch. They will include but not be confined to people in McCain's campaign. If your wish comes through I just might remind you of your post six months hence, when we will all know exactly what people who "are willing to do or say anything for power" are capable of.

[Buzz Clik]

49. You've got to be kidding. Her refusal to do an Edwards on the vote about Iraq?

Hells bells, that was a calculated play to the right wing because she was certain she'd be the nominee.

And not forcing the Wright insanity? Please. She gets no credit there at all.

I was squarely in the Clinton camp until she started unleashing on Obama. I am now an Obama donor and activist for one and only one reason: Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. If you reread my OP

you will note that I very specifically cited the first one on one debate held between Obama and Texas. That debate was held late in February, well into Obama's streak of 14 straight victories following Super Tuesday. I think most would agree that Hillary Clinton was by no means "certain she'd be the nominee" at that point. The road to the White House runs through the Democratic Primaries and Democratic voters by overwhelmingly majorities are upset over the Iraq war.

[Buzz Clik]

63. Your OP attempts to reframe the arguments. Hillary took a firm stand on her vote long ago.

When Edwards was challenging her to apologize for her vote, she flatly refused for two reasons (maybe three): 1) She was playing to the right and right-leaning moderates. Yes, the left would be annoyed, but they'd never vote for a Republican. So she drew the line in the sand. 2) She felt she could rationalize it away if she had to, and she has been trying for months. We've heard her say she thought she was voting for more negotiations; we've heard Bill say the Condi Rice promised Hillary that no military action would be taken until the inspectors were done. So, she hedges the bet with the right by sticking to her guns about the vote, but she plays to the right by inventing scenarios where her vote was okay.

Hillary has always felt she had the nomination in the bag. Iowa scared her, but a little mommy moment about how hard it is to be her accompanied by some tightness in the throat and the edge of tears, and she was rolling in New Hampshire.

So, we get "Shame on you, Barack Obama" about health care because it's a sacred Democratic principle, but she won't back off on her war vote. And, she tells the world that McCain is more ready to be president than Obama. And her operatives appear on Fox News like clockwork -- one of whom praised Bill O'Reilly and his criticism of Daily Kos as being infected with liberal elitists (and she's campaigning for a woman whose 7-year income was nine digits long before the decimal point.) And she plays googly eyes with Richard Mellon Scaithe -- the master of the vast rightwing conspiracy who continues to believe that Hillary was part of a murder plot for Vince Foster.

The list is endless.

Yeah, she'll say anything. Anything ... to get elected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. I don't pretend that one thread can cover all the disagreements DUer's have expressed

since this campaign for the Democratic nomination began. We all can and will keep pursuing all of the idividual point by point aguements on hundreds of individual threads each day, just like we always have. But you again side stepped the specific point we were discussing. Anyone who goes back now and scans through the threads started at at the time on DU about the debate I referenced can see how often posters expressed amazement that Clinton did not take that opportunity to say she was "sorry" for her IWR vote, and how her refusal to swung that debate and maybe the nomination to Obama.

[Joe Chi Minh]

104. You first point, in particular, seems very perceptive. It's really all about what kmsarvis said,

above, imo. The sell-out.

However, working with the once somewhat more powerul, somewhat less disgraced, invisible government by the Republicans, to temper their excesses - even when Bill was President - is what they know, and ordinarily could probably repeat quite successfully.

But I don't believe it is enough for the people now, or has been for 8 years and more, and would be viewed as less and less sufficient as the Depression bites deeper and deeper. Centre-left, at the very least will be wanted; not centre-right or even centre.

[niceypoo]

170. Thats funny, the only thing keeping me out of the Obama camp is their Unleashing on Hillary...

...and her supporters, funny how that all worked out...

...Oh, and by the way...your little "Hillary will say anything to get elected" is smear #10

Number Ten. "Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to become President". First, few actually give even a second thought to how utterly viscious an attack that sentance contains. In a world where a significant percentage of the planet's rulers gained power by literally murdering some of their opposition, this is not trivial accusation to make. Murder in fact was already among the charges that some on the Right claim Hillary Clinton was guilty of while trying to hold onto political power at the highest levels. This attack line is a retread from the Limbaugh School of Journalism. And for those who complain about this, that, or another thing that Hillary Clinton may have said that poisons the chances for Barack Obama to win the General Election should he become our nominee; none of it rises to the level of making this type of accusation against Hillary Clinton. Nothing gives greater ammunition for John McCain to use against Hillary Clinton should she become our nominee than the claim that she will do or say anything to pursue personal power, but that's a charge that Barack Obama has already made against her.

Perhaps next time you should actually read something before you comment on it.

[MethuenProgressive]

60. She's unwilling to say "I was conceived at a Civil Rights march in Selma," to get elected.

Some people get passes.

[Auntie Bush]

129. LOL

That's why some people get Duzy's.

[Skidmore]

47. Hillary has run an inane and profane campaign.....starting

with hiring a Republican operative and borrowing the Republican playbook.

[Buzz Clik]

50. KICK!

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

51. ha-ha-ha! now that's entertainment! very funny!

[Joe the Revelator]

54. A lot of those things....

the pathilogical lying, the say anything, do anything do get elected, the Iraq war vote, are backed up by cold hard facts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Thanks for glossing over the content of my OP

and for all your efforts to put a pathological liar in the White House.

[Joe the Revelator]

59. Making excuse after excuse for Hillary doesn't give your OP any real merit.

[niceypoo]

171. Next time take off your hate glasses and actually read it...

[Buzz Clik]

64. Expand on that "pathological liar" comment, would you please?

You just spent a couple of thousand words defending Hillary against ten myths, including one being that she is a compulsive liar -- but you're willing to flop that load on Obama?

Please make that clear -- is that what you're doing?

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Re-read Point Three

"Bottom line; all candidates "lie" and virtually all message board posters do too. To update the old cliche: "Lies happen".

I included a few of Obama's "lies" in that point, but I'm not the one who actually is framing this type behavior as evidence of pathological lying. Not by her, not by him. But those who use that framing are working to put a pathological liar in the White House.

[Buzz Clik]

69. Please stop telling me to read your post. I read it, okay? Back to it...

I happen to agree with point three that calling Hillary a pathological liar is way over the top, even though some of his missteps have unraveled important aspects of her campaign. Case in point: the Bosnia/sniper misrepresentation cut right to the heart of her foreign affairs experience. Maybe she misremembered (your term), maybe she fused experiences. I don't know, but I don't consider her a pathological liar.

In that context, I find it interesting how easily you gave in to the temptation to engage in exactly the same level of misguided namecalling that your very lengthy OP was so heavily criticizing.

I appreciate your efforts here and respect your arguments. Don't throw it all away in a game of gotcha with the unreceptive.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. I accept your criticism in good faith

Thanks. If my sparring with a critic can be seen as misguided name calling I would rather be corrected on that point. For the record I don't think either of our Presidential candidates are pathological liars.

[Buzz Clik]

73. I'm glad to hear you say that.

I'd really like to see the hyperbole on both sides just go away.

[MethuenProgressive]

57. Superb post! Sorry about getting flamed by DU's pro-McCain squad.

Things were quite better here when I had the dirty dozen on ignore.

[rodeodance]

62. :-)

[guyanakoolaid]

134. I assume since Hillary says McCain will be better than Obama that she's on the McCain squad, too

[niceypoo]

169. Do Obamites think in smears?

Have smears replaced their synapses?

GOP 2000 = Obamites 2008

[guyanakoolaid]

175. Smears are untruths. You know, like what Hillary is trying to do with the Wright controversy

Me pointing out Hillary's statement about McCain and Obama is not a smear. It was a pretty fucking stupid thing for her to say, yes, but simply pointing it out is not a smear.

Get a dictionary.

[SeaLyons]

61. Thank You, Tom....

This is a great post.

:kick:

[Beacool]

67. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Even though it's going to fall in the deaf ears of many who only can see through the eyes of their chosen leader.

[guruoo]

72. K&R

[Seabiscuit]

75. Error: you've already recommended this thread.

Wow.

Thanks for organizing my thoughts in writing for me. :)

[bobhuntsman]

77. you may find. . .

that people will take you more seriously IF YOU USE SPELL-CHECK BEFORE YOU POST SOMETHING!!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. My computer OP was maxed out last night. I tried but failed, lol

I had too many windows open and did too much surfing all day which had my virtual memory hurting, so I kept getting scripts saying the spell check program may interfere with the running of my computer when I tried to open it. I kept closing windows but to no avail. So after three failed tries I hit "post message" and just let it rip, lol.

I used it on this post, but didn't need to!

[PatSeg]

87. Welcome to DU

Your first post at DU and you use it to complain about spelling?

:shrug:

[JeanGrey]

79. It won't work, sorry. Trying to defend her pathological lies

by saying "everyone else does it" isn't helping her. She is finished.

[ProSense]

80. I know, she

misspoke http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com">here and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/85359/24244/36/488126">here

Those damn critics should stop forcing her to lie. n/t

[sansatman]

81. It's a matter of trust. Can we trust Hillary

or is she more of the same old politics.

Release of the redacted "First lady papers" coupled with this little faux pas does not bode well for Hillary.


http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/077

[Occam Bandage]

83. I'm okay with 3,5,7,9,10.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. At least this provided a handy quick check list for you, lol

It gives us a reference point for future exchanges!

[Occam Bandage]

94. Indeed. I think in arguments, I'll just say (5a), to which you can say (5b), and we'll be good.

[JohnnyLib2]

85. I may start using your list as a shorthand in responses.

I would save a lot of time and effort.

E.g. RRS* # 3 noted. Thank you.

*Rinaldo Rating Scale

[McCamy Taylor]

86. In my journals "The Press v. Hillary" I show that the press has been pushing these lies

for a long time, but with particular force starting even before she announced early last year. A bunch of Right wing shill like Bay Buchanan and Bob Novak (along with perennial Hillary basher Chris Matthews) lead the way.

So, when the Freeper moles here at DU and the Obama supporters here at DU parrot what they have heard for a year and a half on the news, they are just following a bandwagon. Groupthink is sometimes easier than thinking for yourself.

[Tom Rinaldo]

89. It has been sobering

to face the degree of compliance with Right Wing smears supposedly leftist Democrats on boards like this one are willing to accept if not actively further themselves: Often in the name of supporting "New Politics" while spreading outrageous accusations against other Democrats, and often while attacking other Democrats in the most vicious ways possible for the negative manner in which they are said to be campaigning. And although I intentionally stayed candidate neutral in making that statement, I agree with you about the early role of the media in regards to Hillary Clinton.

Please feel free to post a direct link to your Journal piece here if you want.

[pecwae]

91. Kick

[ArkySue]

92. Thank you!

:kick:

[Raffi Ella]

93. .

Thanks for this.

K&R

[Eric Condon]

95. "...might she become a Democrat in quasi name only, like a Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller?"

Um, I think that train already left the station when she endorsed McCain over Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Show me the quote

I believe you are making my point for me.

[Laurab]

108. Which one? Google is your friend - I didn't know which to choose.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14809.html


There's several others, but this should suffice.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Just show me one quote where Hillary Clinton says she is endorsing McCain for President

That should be easy to produce since that is what you claim that she did. In politics endorsing a candidate is pretty basic stuff, very straight forward, with published press releases issued by the candidate who wins an endorsement thanking the endorser for their endorsement.

But tell you what, I'll make it easier still. I will accept a link to any person officially connected to the Obama campaign who made the specific charge that you made about Hillary Clinton. Surely the Obama campaign must have some official comment about his rival for the Democratic nomination actually endorsing the Republican candidate for President.

[Laurab]

118. Sorry, you're moving the goalposts, kind of like HRC does.

I provided you a link.

Hillary did not officially "endorse" McCain - it was unofficial, of course, but she did it several times. She isn't dumb enough to do it officially - she would have been out of this race the minute she did. However, at least 3 people I know who were supporting Hillary changed their minds after that little "non-endorsement", and are now supporting Obama. She crossed a line, and anyone not blinded by HRC loyalty would realize it.

I don't know if Obama said anything about it or not, nor do I care. The several times HRC said it, and the one time her husband said it, was plenty for people to get the idea, except for, of course the hardcore HRC supporters, such as yourself. Nancy Pelosi certainly heard it.

You do NOT say only you and the repuke candidate are qualified to be president if you want to be backed by the DEMOCRATIC party, and if you say it once, and see there's a backlash, you certainly don't repeat it. Yet she did - and Bill did.

She's right up there with Lieberman and Zell now, for many dems. In fact, I don't see how ANY real dem could still support her. If I know 3 people who switched their support because of that, imagine how many there must be.

She's lost my vote for her SENATE seat, because of that comment, and I'm not alone there, either. There is no one she won't throw under the bus for her own political ambition. It's sad because so many people who once liked her no longer do, and she has only herself to blame.

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. Actually you moved the goalposts. I stuck with my original ones.

I know what Clinton said, and she never said that only she and McCain are qualified to be President either. Sure she tried to score points against Obama by seeking to contrast how she would more positively match up against McCain regarding the experience Americans expect in their Commander in Chief. She tried to exploit a perceived advantage she has over her adversary. And I understand that it pissed off some Democrats like you, and I can even see why. It pissed off some Democrats like me when Obama released a TV ad that said Hillary Clinton is willing to do or say anything to become President. That played directly into the Right wing play book against Clinton. Even so Obama hasn't lost my vote if he becomes our nominee and I am not claiming he has unofficially endorsed McCain for President based on only he and McCain have the moral fiber needed to lead America.

[Egnever]

177. The difference in your examples

is in obamas case his argument wasn't there are two straight shooters in this campaign me and John McCain and then theres hillary the pathological liar. It was I am a straight shooter and hillary will say anything with no endorsement of john mcain connected.

You do realize theres a huge difference there ?

I am not a huge fan of the negative attacks but when they are confined to the dem candidates themselves without lifting the republicans openly over your contender I draw the line.



Bottom line though is none of this matters. She has lost, its just a question of when she choses to concede.

[usrbs]

97. K&R

[nichomachus]

98. WOW -- was someone having a sale on straw men?

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. Did you perhaps spend any time on DU during the Clinton supporter boycott?

Those straw men you refer to were all here having a big convention complete with after hour parties. The DU Greatest List served as their convention index.

[RufusTFirefly]

142. BWAHAHA! My thoughts exactly.

[crankychatter]

100. Another Top Ten (for those unwilling to read War and Peace up there)

No offense to Leo Tolstoy intended.

1. Hillary Clinton voted for Bush’s Iraq war

2. Hillary Clinton for Bush’s USA Patriot Act

3. Hillary Clinton voted to reauthorize Bush’s USA Patriot Act

4. Hillary Clinton opposed the international treaty to ban land mines

5. Hillary Clinton is one of the Senate’s most outspoken critics of the United Nations

6. Hillary Clinton voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas

7. Hillary Clinton is one of the most prominent critics of the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 advisory ruling that the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations

8. Hillary Clinton supported Israel’s massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians, half of whom were children

9. Hillary Clinton opposes the complete repeal of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act)

10. Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to read the NIE before casting her pro-Iraq war vote

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. I see why you chose your DU handle

This thread is not assigned reading, but not everything important can be covered by sound bites.

There are lots of legitimate issues for discussion, including your list and ones that most of us could write for or against each candidate. When we do our individual bias usually becomes clear, as is yours. But if you don't like having to actually read why people think the things that they do, this board will be no better than a 5 minute news round up on main stream media.

[crankychatter]

105. MSM (Corporate media) most frequently cited source

for DU

that's simply pathetic

facts in brief may be appear to be bytes to YOU, but in

FACT

you won't hear ANY OF THEM in the MSM

nah, I'm a sweetheart

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. OK. I'll gladly stand corrected

So can I call you sweetie then? :)

Obama got a bum rap on that one.

[crankychatter]

116. I'm from the Left Coast

anybody can call ME, "sweety," but only my friends can touch my butt.

[lark]

131. Tell me one anti-war vote by Obama

that wasn't matched by Clinton? Hmm, there are none. When asked about helping the people defaulting on their mortgages, Obama initially said nothing could be done, sad but can't help. It wasn't until Edwards and Clinton came out with specific plans that Obama finally got somewhat in the game. So who's for helping rich mortgage brokers and who's for helping the victims? Funny, you didn't mention any of this. I love it how Obamatrons just seem to ignore every reality but the one's favorable to "the saint". By the way, I'm really a Gore or Edwards person, so this isn't from an "I LOVE HRC" type poster. I'm just sick of all the hate directed her way but no analysis at all of Obama's imperfections.

[Joe Chi Minh]

101. No mention in #5 of Hillary's unfavourable comparison of Obama's experience with

McCain's.

No mention in #9 of Hillary's concurrence with Bush and McCain's policy of keeping US bases and, inevitably, troops, in Iraq. Imperialism is OK, apparently.

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. Those matters frequently have been and do get discussed here, appropriately so

I think I was clear in my comments above that there is plenty of room for any fair minded person to be critical of either candidate over one or more matters.

[Joe Chi Minh]

122. True enough.

[sofa king]

106. What about #11: The Republicans want to run against her.

Oh, wait. That one's true. Picking Hillary Clinton to be the nominee automatically motivates every last one of the 69 million right wing authoritarians to go to the polls to vote against her, because the GOP has invested twenty years of slander in her. That's why Rush Limbaugh and Richard Mellon Scaife are playing nice with the Clinton campaign.

Yeah, voting against a person of color is also a motivation, because in right-wing-land it's okay to hate black people, but there is a problem because the hatred isn't as overt. Cast a little bit of doubt on the picture and the hate-bots suddenly have a problem, because thanks to Karl Rove in 2000 they've already been programmed to hate John McCain, too. They'll come out like termites from the basement to vote against Hillary, but Obama vs. McCain confuses them. It's only through that confusion that the RWA's will be forced to think for themselves, which they'll gladly avoid rather than actually do.

[rodeodance]

110. These attacks-the list--simply shut down conversation--but maybe that is the goal anyway.

.

...Number Ten. "Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to become President". First, few actually give even a second thought to how utterly viscious an attack that sentance contains. In a world where a significant percentage of the planet's rulers gained power by literally murdering some of their opposition, this is not trivial accusation to make. Murder in fact was already among the charges that some on the Right claim Hillary Clinton was guilty of while trying to hold onto political power at the highest levels. This attack line is a retread from the Limbaugh School of Journalism. And for those who complain about this, that, or another thing that Hillary Clinton may have said that poisons the chances for Barack Obama to win the General Election should he become our nominee; none of it rises to the level of making this type of accusation against Hillary Clinton. Nothing gives greater ammunition for John McCain to use against Hillary Clinton should she become our nominee than the claim that she will do or say anything to pursue personal power, but that's a charge that Barack Obama has already made against her.

No attack on a fellow Democrat unleashes more potentially lethal fire than that one, and it is utterly false. Hillary Clinton's campaign may have or may yet cross one or more lines that some of her critics would prefer not be crossed, in her competition with Barack Obama for the nomination. Hopefully most of her critics also understand that sometimes that feeling is reversed. But this particular attack bluntly states that there simply is NO line, period, that Hillary Clinton won't cross at the expense either of her opponents or our nation.

[guyanakoolaid]

136. Wrong, rodeodance, Hillary said McCain was more ready than Obama to be President

Have you conveniently forgotten that altogether?

[goodgd_yall]

114. Another great post

Thank you for the time and thought you put into your posts, TR.

[jgraz]

117. More like top ten faux victimization stories put out by Clintonites

Face it, the evidence is against you. You're backing a candidate who is a proven liar, a war supporter, a DLC corporatist and a full-on craptastic campaigner with zero chance of winning. Inventing straw men and blaming the messengers does nothing to change that.


Oh, and btw Tom, I trust you have been ALL OVER your fellow Clinton supporters when they engaged in the exact same type of negative posts against Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

120. It seems you are unfamiliar with my posting history here n/t

[jgraz]

121. Yep, I tend to limit the number of DUers whose posts I commit to memory

However, I'm pretty sure I've never seen you on any of the Rezko/Wright/Pledge flamefests. My impression is that you're pretty fair-minded, but I strongly disgree with what you've posted above. Your objections to some of the most extreme, uncommon posts seems like an attempt to defuse the more rational (and valid, IMHO) criticisms of the Clintons.

[Tom Rinaldo]

126. I get tired of flame fests on DU

I praised Obama's speech here and I supported him for not throwing Wright under the bus so to speak, but I refuse to spend my time going onto every negative thread posted here about either Clinton or Obama and endlessly dueling over every specific allegation. From time to time I have called out Clinton supporters overtly for ugly posts and/or threads, and I have never said that I thought Obama could not or should not be elected and/or make a good President. I didn't trash him in this thread either.

DU has been full of threads claiming Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar for days now. It is currently the most in vogue line of attack being used against her. It is a very malicious line of attack because it seeks to undermine all basic trust in her decency as a person or her credibility as a leader with voters. Escalating it beyond being critical of certain "lies" in individual statements Clinton has made to labeling her an across the board pathological liar is flat out character assassination. But with MLK's recent birthday there also was a mini rash of threads about Hillary Clinton being a Goldwater Girl - those I lump in as examples of the Inane attacks.

[jgraz]

137. I don't know about "pathological" but she certainly has had a strained relationship with the truth

These same charges were leveled against her in '92, when she circled my state spreading lies and half-truths about Jerry Brown's programs and personal life. Calling her "pathological" may be somewhat extreme, but it's not wholly unsupported.

[Eric Condon]

119. An apology for the IWR vote isn't just "what Democratic voters wanted to hear."

It's what anyone with a conscience would have given, if, indeed, they'd voted for the illegal bloodbath at all. I understand that a lot of good lawmakers did indeed vote for the war (for a variety of reasons), but I've seen satisfactory contrition from all of them except Hillary.

Naturally, as a rabid Clinton supporter unwilling to accept even the slightest criticism of your candidate, I'm sure this doesn't bother you (you are supporting her, after all, so I assume that means you're okay with her Bu$hCo-enabling record), but it bothers the rest of us.

The Iraq War is not just another issue. It is a matter of thousands of innocent people dying for absolutely nothing. Voters have every right and every reason to be troubled by her attitude about her record on the war.

To me, it all comes down to this Clinton quote:

"I have to say, if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."


My response: Done.

[Little Star]

124. She has become an emotionally battered woman by the MSM &

Obama supporters. SHAME on them!!

[tandot]

138. K & R.

[jenmarie]

144. Thank you, Tom Rinaldo!

:kick: & R

[Willo]

145. Thanks for post Tom

Numbers #1, #8 and #10 are largely based on the public's perception of her. How she is perceived is an important criteria to consider when choosing the President of the United States. A role made more important today because of how we are presently viewed globally.

The perception of Hillary is largely based on #3 where the only argument to really be had is on the word "pathological." Any one is free to do word dances if they like. But, they cannot have a problem with not getting people to dance with them.

But, I will correct you on this: To call a liar "a liar", is not a smear, it is stating an ugly fact.

On perception:
An unfortunate truth, about having been caught in a lie, is people will call in to question statements made and yet to be made. A more unfortunate truth, is to be caught in the present for having told a lie, that precedes the one you were initially caught in.

It's a vicious cycle that's difficult to escape. ESPECIALLY IF another lie is made or found in the cycle.

She hit a winner in one of the last debates with a story of wounded soldiers wheeling in to hear her speak. I would not have given her account a second thought if not for the Bosnia lie. Its my choice to not trust her. It's her choice to not be trustworthy.

[delt664]

147. So many things here, I am just going to pick one. Experience.

Senator Clinton was the candidate who made experience (or a lack thereof) a main issue in this campaign, claiming at least once (that I have heard) to have over 35 years of experience.

While I am sure Senator Clinton is experienced in a multitude of areas, experience releveant to the position is what should be examined (as you say). I absolutely deny that Bill Clintons wealth of experience transfers to Hillary Clinton in any way. This is not a sexist comment about wives or any other such slander. It just common sense.

In my opinion, the biggest and most basic issue that our nation is facing is the erosion of the Constitution and body of law, so the most relevant experience would be legislative / legal.

Now for a side by side comparison.

Senator Clinton has held an elected legislative office in the legislature for 7 years.

Senator Obama has held an elected legislative office in the legisfor 11 years.

While I agree with you that experience does not always equate with good judgement or wisdom, and your example of Dick Cheney is quite appropriate, Senator Clinton has been the one to put the comparison in terms of years in an attempt to show Senator Obama as inexperienced. She has claimed quite a bit more than she actually deserves credit for, and when people start asking questions these claims have been quickly been imploding. Im going to go out on a limb here and say that this is the main reason for your Number Three.

[Utopian Leftist]

148. Her voice

"her vote is HER VOICE"

But . . . but they said she didn't find her voice until New Hampshire.

Must have been a hoarse whisper. :sarcasm:

[Ztarbod]

149. You forgot the utterly pathetic job she has done managing her campaign

[AwareOne]

151. You forgot to mention the wide-spread disdain for her

and that she will never win a general election. You would have to be living under a rock for the last 16 years to think Hillary could win a presidential election. Are you that out of touch with political reality? Hillary will never in a million years win the general election, sadly, Obama probably won't either. Once again, we Democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Infinite Hope]

152. INANE (correct spelling): "Devoid of Intelligence." ----How ironic. n/t

[BootinUp]

156. Will someone give this jerk a gold star for studying his spelling words, geez!

[IowaGirl]

153. Unfortunately, some hammerheads are just not going to get the point of this, but I do and I thank...

you for this. :kick:

[juajen]

155. Hallelujah! I am thrilled someone finally put all of this together.

I have wanted to, and my anger always got in the way. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[kiva]

158. Thank you, Tom.

Your post is a thoughtful rebuttal to some of the nasty sound bites that have been passing for political discussion here--K&R.

[DrFunkenstein]

161. Clinton's Militarism Goes Far Beyond The IWR Vote

There are lots of instances to cite, from arguing about leaving nuclear weapons "on the table" for fighting terrorist cells in civilian areas to publicly supporting neo-con con man Ahmed Chalabi to this little gem:

BAGHDAD (AP) — As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.

"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq-senators_x.htm

And I haven't even mentioned Iran.

I'm not sure which straw man number these would fall under, and I don't really care. You can invent all kinds of victimization scenarios, but the fact is that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated herself inferior to Obama (who has articulated a anti-terrorism plan that strikes at the economic desperation at its roots, as well as pushing for a global initiative to dismantle all nuclear weapons - including our own).

[VotesForWomen]

162. good and correct analysis. it will fall on deaf ears though. nt

[what if]

163. The Inane and Profane for McCain.

Unfortunately, all ten of those ugly allegations harm Democratic candidates, regardless of whom they may be.

Obviously, they harm Hillary. However, they also harm Obama in several ways. First, they anger some Hillary supporters sufficiently that they will not vote for Obama in the general. Second, they contribute to the low level of discourse that is currently beginning to turn off many un-decided Republicans and Independents who might otherwise consider voting against John McCain next November.

The Democratic Party is quite good at making it easy for Republicans to win the Presidency. When we look inane and profane, all of our candidates take a hit. Our all too frequent use of such inane and profane lines of argument is probably one of our top ten gifts to the GOP.

Then, of course, for another top ten gift to the GOP, there is the business of not counting the votes in Florida and Michigan.

If we insist on following this ludicrous path, we may as well form the customary circle and continue firing until we run out of inane and profane ammo. Oh, wait. We'll never run out of that. There's more than enough of that to eventually take down everyone. So, maybe we should think a little harder before firing off our shots. If they are inane and profane, we know they will ricochet around the circle and harm all of us.

What if we all tried to research thoroughly and be as objective as we can before firing any shots? There's an idea.

[zulchzulu]

165. Sorry, but Hillary IS a pathological liar, WAS a Goldwater Girl, has less experience than Obama...

...and will do just about anything to win....which she won't.

I could post all the lies Hillary has spewed, but since you're apparently a Hillbot, you'd try to enable her lies, so forget it...OK, one word...sniper or NAFTA or DOMA or...ferchrissakes, I might crash the DU server.

She DID work for Goldwater, hence IS/WAS a Goldwater Girl.

She has 8 years of legislative experience to Obama's 12, unless you're including her years as First Lady WITHOUT national security clearances.

And yes, simply by pointing out Obama's kindergarten paper to criticize him, she pretty much gained the notoriety of being able consciously to do what is UNPRECEDENTED in American presidential politics by pointing out another candidate's school paper when he was 6.

She's not going to be the nominee, thank God.

[countmyvote4real]

172. Much of what you post is true.

I agree that she is a liar AND she will do anything that it takes to become POTUS.

I don't think you included it, but she is not good with math. She is losing to Obama. The longer she stays in the race the more she becomes a spoiler that spoils the entire Democratic ticket. And yet, if the Clintons were really as selfish as some believe, why are they still in this race that they have already lost?

Could it be about the money? You know, books about villages and losing to the first black POTUS. That's a given fall back income strategy. If there could be a second Clinton library (His and Hers), that could really juice the goose. And don't forget about the pardons. They pay real good. I think the Clintons have already been bought out.

Cheney/Bush seem to be in a position to pay real good to be ignored by another Clinton administration. If a reader is not aware of the change in politics from Bush 1 to Clinton 1, I can't help you. You must be motivated enough to google it yourself. I will offer these google hints and keywords: iran contra reagan.

More importantly, has Obama really messed up as much as Hillary and McCain on their respective campaign trails? I don't think so. McCain is already metaphorically shitting his diapers like Reagan. The Clintons are no longer the leaders they think they are. If they loved their country more than themselves, they would recognize a movement and change for the better. Unfortunately, the Clintons cannot recognize a movement that doesn't pay them money in kind.

On top of that, Ms Health Insurance Expert/Sympathizer can't or won't fund her current staff's health insurance. If you collectively earned a million dollars this year, would you not feel compelled to give back a little? I am over the Clintons. They are only in this race for their personal gain. Of course, who doesn't stand to gain by being elected, anointed or appointed to the office?

I have a bad feeling about her and that's not because she's a woman. Been there. Done that. Her husband got his dick sucked by an intern. She had to lie about it as if she didn't know it was happening at all.

I strongly dislike her for being a spoiler and sincerely hope that I don't have to hold my nose and vote for her in the general. Is that the kind of support a viable candidate inspires? I don't think so.

[GMFORD]

176. I saw that you cross-posted this

at MyDD. Wasn't impressed when I read it there either.

[tucsonlib]

178. Okay, But Here's an Argument That is Neither Innane Nor Profane - Just Sane

Months prior to March 13, 2003 there were tens of millions of ordinary citizens worldwide who recognized that a preventive invasion of Iraq would be immoral, illegal and catastrophic. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that we were being fed a pack of lies. I have little sympathy for those (including Senator Clinton) who now claim they were somehow misled into supporting the war.
I am not a "Clinton-hater". This has nothing to do with gender, personality or personal prejudices. I simply cannot enthusiastically support any Presidential candidate who, at the critical moment, displayed such gullibility and/or poor judgment.